The ideas, discussion, and proposals which follow are not only
Having spent much of my seven-year career as an FCC Commissioner writing dissenting opinions in matters resolved by votes of six to one, that doesn't bother me. As someone has observed before me, "Every new idea is, at its inception, supported by a minority of one."
But I would not want to leave any ambiguity regarding the support of others for these ideas.
This paper is not my comments on the legislation currently under consideration in Georgia. Those comments are contained in a separate document.
This is simply the expression of some personal views.
So why do I bother to write this at all?
My work on behalf of the Georgia Parliament is as a volunteer. Even though I am unpaid, I take that work, and that relationship, seriously.
I am happy to have been asked to participate in the ABA/CEELI-Georgia Parliament effort to review proposed legislative language, section by section, line by line -- most recently during a visit to Tbilisi, Georgia, February 24-March 3, 1998. That is important work. I have done some of it, and will do more -- elsewhere than in this document.
The story is told of the three bricklayers who were asked what they were doing. "I'm carrying bricks," said one. "I'm making a wall," said the second. "I'm building a cathedral," said the third.
Media and telecommunications policy are central to the functioning of any society. They affect -- among other things -- economic growth, the education of the young, levels of democratic participation, the preservation of the culture, and the values of the people about everything from the role of women to the role of war -- essentially every aspect of being human and living in a civilized community.
So I'm happy to carry the bricks and build the wall, but I would also like to offer my view from the top of the cathedral.
Most of these ideas will be (or have been) rejected by Georgians as they have been by North Americans. So I will be neither surprised nor disappointed if this paper has little or no effect on Georgia's future.
But I believe it would be irresponsible of me not to at least offer these ideas for consideration.
-- Nicholas Johnson
March 12, 1998
That is one option. It appears to be the option on its way to adoption. There are, however, alternative options.
The following idea, or approach, was discussed with very few individuals, and none who responded to it positively. (The response was not negative; the focus was simply on other issues and approaches.) It is included here anyway because (a) I truly do believe it is worth serious consideration by Georgians, and (b) it may be found of interest in the future by individuals with whom I did not have the opportunity to discuss it during my recent visit.
There are disadvantages to building a telecommunications and broadcasting system "from scratch," from the ground up. There may be a shortage of capital, and experienced personnel. There may be an absence of audience expectation. In the case of Georgia, there is also the pre-existing state broadcasting system to overcome.
But there are also advantages.
One of the advantages is the opportunity to "leapfrog" intermediate technologies. It is not necessary to create the analog broadcasting system of the 1960s in order to evolve toward the 21st Century. One can start with a 21st Century digital system and simply skip the technologies of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.
There are also disadvantages to creating a 1960s television system.
But this portion of this paper is not about precise recommendations anyway. It's about a "new paradigm," a new way of thinking about Georgia's telecommunications and media future. So the ideas that follow are merely examples designed to stimulate discussion, suggestive illustrations of the type of options that may be available to those who are planning, and building, Georgia's future. Those who are open to new paradigm ways of thinking will almost certainly come up with approaches that are not mentioned here, are far better, and certainly better suited to Georgia.
(1) Satellite broadcasting. Small (50 cm) dishes for reception of satellite signals (with the accompanying receivers and other equipment) are now relatively cheap. Presumably, with the research and development, science and engineering capability in Georgia, they could be built in-country (thereby providing jobs and otherwise improving the economy). The satellite uplink, and the satellite itself, are, of course, more expensive. [Perhaps satellite channels could be leased, rather than owning the satellite. Perhaps foundations or other aid-granting institutions, or even corporations, could be interested in contributing funding.]
Investigation may show that such a system would not be more expensive than the cost of providing a country-wide coverage of Georgia using conventional, over-the-air broadcasting technology. Even if it were to be slightly more expensive, among the advantages of such a system are that:
Of course, it is also possible for a cable system to create its own programming, or contract with programming suppliers (who often use satellites to distribute their product). Although there is no theoretical limit to the number of channels a cable system can provide (by stringing additional cables) many U.S. cable companies offer only 35 channels. (Unless required to do otherwise, the cable company, normally a monopoly, will seek to profit maximize by charging as much as possible for as little programming as possible -- while maintaining a non-reviewable control, or censorship, over all channels.)
Note that, rather than using a cable system as an alternative distribution network for over-the-air stations' signals, it could be created as the sole method for bringing audio and video programming into Georgians' homes. (Presumably, such a system would need to be created as a "common carrier;" that is, a system that would be forbidden to have any interest in the programming, and would be required to add such additional channels as are necessary to satisfy programmers' demand -- at fair, regulated, equal prices for all.)
(3) Video dialtone. An alternative to "cable television" would be to create a "telephone" system capable of handling voice, data, fax, and video. Cable television typically has no capacity for switching -- a basic necessity for conventional telephone systems. The video dialtone option would be otherwise similar to that for cable television: a common carrier.
(4) Internet. The distribution of video signals is now in its infancy on the Internet. But, then, so were photos and audio not that many years ago. Today the video pictures are small, sometimes jerky, and the quality is not that good. But there are now plans to expand the capacity of the Internet by 100 times, or even 1000 times.
Many radio stations now "broadcast" their signal over the Internet simultaneously with conventional broadcast over the air. Presumably the day will soon come when this will be true for TV stations as well.
Georgia could (perhaps) take the plunge, with a ten year plan, say, for conversion to Internet distribution of what is today thought of as "television" programming. Because "telephone" conversations are now possible over the Internet, and fax transmissions, Georgia could find itself the world leader in this field.
(5) Wireless Internet. Of course, one of the drawbacks to Internet alternatives in Georgia today is that connection to the Internet is normally made with a "modem" through conventional telephone lines -- which are both slow and not always reliable for this purpose. (There is also the problem of electric power outages, but presumably these would be resolved by the time the Internet conversion was in place.)
The discussion of satellite distribution, above, refers to "downloading" Internet material to a small dish. Such a system would still require uploading -- today through the telephone system. However, it is also possible to provide wireless connections between an Internet Service Provider and a user. No only does this avoid the problems (and costs) associated with telephone wire connections, it also substantially increases the possible speeds of transmission.
As explained at the beginning of this section, I am not recommending any of these ideas -- and certainly not all of them. What I am recommending is that they be used as a stimulus for "what if" games, for thinking about (and then planning and building) possible future telecommunications and media systems.
I would like to see Georgia use the new communications
technologies that are now available and can better position the
country to provide education for its children, jobs for its adults, and
a better quality of life and more democratic society for all.
Needless to say, virtually all media owners support this view.
Less expected, perhaps, is that the Supreme Court of the United States does also. The Court says that the "freedom of speech" includes the freedom not to speak; or, more precisely, the right to keep others from speaking. The Court has ruled that media owners can censor the views of those who would like to engage in a community's democratic dialogue by using the pages of its newspapers, or time on its radio and television stations. The point is that, not only do citizens not have the right to free newspaper space and broadcast time, they do not even have the right to buy space or time if the owner wishes to silence their viewpoint.
Thus, the position that follows is my own. It is not the view of most lawyers, judges, law or journalism professors -- nor is it the view of some of the professional journalists with whom I spoke in Georgia (though they are quite insistent that they should have free speech rights vis-a-vis their employer-owners).
I believe that a democracy requires that all citizens have the potential right to participate in the democratic dialogue in a meaningful way (whether they choose to exercise that right or not).
A media owner should have the right to operate a newspaper or broadcast station with no advertising (for example, with support from subscribers, contributors, foundations, or from the owner's personal wealth). But if an owner does choose to sell space or time I believe they should not have the right to sell to some and not others. Especially is this true if there are a limited number of outlets reaching most of the community (as is true in all but the very largest cities).
(Of course, I do not advocate that all advocacy ads need be taken, only that the reasonable and rational selection process not be based on content.)
Whatever one's position on this issue, there are other possible ways of democratizing and diversifying the media that are far less controversial -- and well within American law. Many of these options did seem to be of interest, and potentially acceptable, to the Georgians with whom I spoke. That is, there was a willingness to consider alternatives to a top down, hierarchial control of all content by a single media owner (whether state, public or corporate).
(1) Producer power. Within the contemplated "public broadcasting" alternative to state broadcasting there seemed to be support for the idea that the administrative budget and staff be kept lean, and that funding should go directly to producers (rather than through administrators). Indeed, a form of competition for these funds was proposed by some Georgians. Such an approach will encourage greater diversity as well as creativity.
(2) Political and reply time. There seemed to be support for a number of proposals growing out of the American experience with "equal opportunity" (the Sec. 315 requirement that if a station puts on one candidate for public office it is required to give an equal opportunity to all competitors), and the F.C.C.'s "personal attack doctrine" (citizens may be attacked by broadcast media owners, but the attack triggers a right in the person attacked to know what was said and to reply personally).
There was a belief that at least public, and possibly commercial broadcasting as well, should make free time available to candidates (an idea now being proposed in the U.S. as a partial payback by broadcasters for the $70 billion worth of free frequencies recently given them by Congress and the F.C.C. for high definition television). The "fairness doctrine" (Sec. 315; now rejected by the F.C.C.; stations must cover "controversial issues of public importance" and, in doing so, must present a range of views) was only touched upon briefly, but there was little or no rejection of that idea.
(3) Community access cable channels. In the U.S. cable companies are required to make some of their channels available, for free, to designated institutions (such as local government, or public schools) and also to individual citizens. Without detailing either the history or specific requirements, such programming is, for the most part, not subject to cable company censorship. Thus, any citizen with access to a video camera can present his or her views to the community. There seemed to be some openness to this concept in Georgia as well.
(4) Access is fairness. Although never adopted by the F.C.C., when the fairness doctrine was under attack there was a proposal that radio and television stations wishing to opt out of its requirements could do so by offering a fixed percentage of each segment of their broadcast day for the purpose of (usually one-minute) announcements by local community groups. (Of course, not all tendered announcements would have to be broadcast, but the system of selection would have to be other than content based.)
(5) Ownership limitations. All Georgians (to the best of my recollection) were agreed that there should be some limitations on the numbers of stations any one owner can control. There was no objection to my proposal that this limit be set at one station per licensee. Whatever the statutory limitation ends up being, obviously the more owners there are the greater is the potential diversity of programming and opinion.
(6) Shared time stations. Giving every station licensee the right to broadcast 24 hours a day, seven days a week, creates an artificial limit on the number of "broadcasters" and the diversity of their programming. An obvious solution is "shared time." Under this approach everyone who wants to broadcast can do so. For example, if there are ten persons who wish to broadcast and only five stations, each can broadcast (a) a half-day, everyday, or (b) a whole day, three or four days a week. As more wish to broadcast there is less time per day for each; as some go out of business there is more time to share. Administrative arrangements would be made to fairly share the costs of construction, and operation, of the stations.
(7) Citizens media reform organizations. There is at this point little Georgian experience with the voluntary organizations so familiar in the U.S. from the time of De Toqueville to the present. Media reform organizations in particular have played a very significant role in the U.S. in encouraging greater F.C.C. scrutiny of stations' performance, the creation of standards (and legislation) regarding childrens' programming, or the reduction in levels of violence in television programs.
(8) Ombudspersons, letters and news councils. How can the public participate in the process of mass media selection and distribution of news? Some U.S. newspapers have in-house "ombudspersons" (a Scandinavian concept and word), independent of management and journalists, to receive -- and respond publicly, in the paper -- to complaints from the public. Some papers -- and even radio and television programs -- receive, and read, letters from the public critical of the programming. News councils are independent bodies of citizens -- normally with no legal power -- that hear, and write opinions regarding, public complaints about the media.
(9) Media literacy. TV viewers in most countries, and especially those brought up on state television, accept TV programming as a given, something they are powerless (and disinclined) to affect. TV advertising is most effective with viewers who are relatively unsophisticated about the way commercials are created, and the techniques used to manipulate consumer choice. By including media literacy courses throughout the K-12 school system it is possible to create a much more sophisticated television audience. Viewers can become more willing to make their own programs, to organize and present their views to stations and regulators, and to be more resistant to commercial appeals.
The point is that, just as there are options offered by
new technology, so are there options with regard to the degree of direct
citizen participation in the democratic dialogue. It is my impression
that the Georgians are interested in including many of these in their broadcasting
practices, policy and law.
Even so, I believe it better to consider and reject them than to fail to consider them at all.
The advantages to a country of having a television system in place are well known.
Nonetheless, the disadvantages of television should be considered.
But there are other reasons why it might wish to curtail
the growth of television -- or at least minimize its adverse consequences.
One of the options would be an alternative medium: radio.
Until the economy substantially improves there cannot be a lot of disposable income, and demand for consumer goods. Without the existence of such a market there is little reason to advertise. Without advertising, there is little income for commercial television. And without the prospect of commercial television income there is little incentive for investors to make a capital investment in stations.
Nor are the economic prospects for "public television" much better. Viewers have little interest in, or experience with, special taxes for television. They believe they have a right to television programming for free. Needless to say, there is even less tradition of voluntary contributions (such as U.S. public television relies upon for support). To the extent public television sells commercials, and becomes dependent on corporate advertisers, it enters into the same ratings game as, and becomes almost indistinguishable from, commercial television. Finally, the more public television is dependent upon the state for financing the more difficult it will be to project an image, and reality, of an independent public (as distinguished from the traditional state controlled) television.
Given the economic realities confronting Georgia at this time, a two-phase plan might be worth consideration. The first phase would involve the development of a national public radio system. A two or three channel system, with nationwide coverage, could be developed for roughly one-tenth of what a national television system would cost.
Once this system was in place, the audience was used to "public broadcasting," the staff was assembled, the programming developed, the financial support firm and adequate -- all at a fraction of the cost of television -- the second phase could begin. The second phase would be public television.
Radio has advantages over television in addition to the cost savings in transmission.
Central to Georgia's future, in my view, will be the decisions regarding its public policy and laws affecting media and telecommunications. Those decisions will be made by Georgians; they must be made by Georgians.
That Georgia's leadership is open to new ideas, to alternatives to its past as it plans for its future, is one of the many strengths of this country and its people.
This paper represents but one U.S. citizen's effort to
contribute to that process -- with appreciation for the invitation to participate,
and confidence in the ultimate result.